Donald Tusk,President of the European Council.– Mr President, on 19 January I said here in the European Parliament that the EU had no more than two months to save the Schengen zone and that the March European Council would be the last moment to see if our strategy worked. If it did not we would face grave consequences, such as the collapse of Schengen. We have used these two months as best we could. In this time I called two summits, dedicated almost exclusively to this issue.

On 7 March the European Council took three important decisions. The first one concerned the ending of the ‘wave-through’ approach, which meant bringing the flow of irregular migrants along the Western Balkans route to a close. This decision was based on the assumption that a European solution without respect for European law and, above all, without respect for the Schengen borders code is not possible.

The second decision was on a massive increase of humanitarian aid to Greece. We set up a new emergency instrument to allow EUR 300 million to be sent this year, firstly to Greece but also to other Member States overwhelmed by the refugee crisis. We also offered further assistance in order to manage the external border in Greece, including the borders with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania, not to mention other forms of support from Member States.

The third decision concerned sending back migrants from Greece to Turkey – those migrants who are not in need of international protection. Leaders also welcomed the presence of NATO in the Aegean to enhance intelligence and surveillance activities, while Turkey agreed to take back all irregular migrants apprehended in Turkish waters.

At our first Council in March, I was also asked by leaders to take forward new proposals made by Turkey and work out a common European position, with a view to reaching an agreement later that month. That agreement was finally reached at the European Council on 18 March. We agreed that, as from 20 March, all irregular migrants coming from Turkey to Greek islands would be returned to Turkey. Implementation would be phased in gradually and based on the so-called one-for-one principle. This is what has begun to happen.

For me, the two key elements of the agreement were first, to guarantee compliance with all EU and international laws by ensuring that each and every migrant arriving in Europe would be treated individually. This included the respect for the principle of non-refoulement and excluded any kind of collective expulsions. The Commission gave a positive assessment of the legality of the agreement, and I want to express my thanks to Jean-Claude and his team for their work and contribution.

Second, as regards accession talks, we took on board Cypriot concerns. The approach to this issue was, to my mind, a test of Europe’s solidarity towards one of its Member States, and Europe passed this test. On the one hand, some were tempted to force Cyprus to make huge concessions. It is quite understandable. But I maintained from the start that we could not sacrifice the most fundamental interests of a Member State, in this case Cyprus, on the altar of a migration deal with Turkey.

We are aware of all the tasks and difficulties in resolving this crisis. From the beginning I have thought it is a dangerous illusion to believe that there exists an ideal and 100%-effective solution. I want to say to all the seekers of the political Holy Grail: you will never find it. Convenient and easy solutions are hard to find in politics, and in this case they are virtually impossible. What we are faced with is a perpetual, tenuous and multi-dimensional effort. In fact, something like a never-ending story.

The solutions we are putting into practice are not ideal and will not end our work. Also, the deal with Turkey is not perfect and we are fully aware of its risks and weaknesses. We did everything we could to ensure that the agreement respects human dignity, but I am conscious of the fact that everything depends on how it will be implemented. The deal with Turkey and closing the Western Balkans route raised doubts of an ethical and also a legal – as in the case of Turkey – nature. I share some of these doubts too. They can only be dispelled by putting the solutions as they were agreed into practice in every detail.

While taking into account all the above-mentioned doubts and even sharing some of them, I would like to recall that the main goal we decided on was to stem irregular migration to Europe. As I have frequently said, without this, and without restoring control over European migration policy, we would be unable to prevent political catastrophes. Here I mean the collapse of Schengen; the loss of control over our external borders, with all its implications for our security; political chaos in the EU; a widespread feeling of insecurity and, ultimately, the triumph of populism and extremism. Today, everyone has finally understood how high the stakes were, and how high they still continue to be.

We need to realise that external circumstances will not work to our advantage. We have heard so many times that the only way to stem irregular migration is by solving the root causes of this crisis, namely by stabilising the world around us. I want to state very clearly that this had too often sounded like an alibi not to do anything at all here in Europe.

I hope we will finally understand that Europe does not hold golden keys in its hands to help solve all the problems of this world. Let me say more. We were so preoccupied with looking for the key to save the world that for a time we lost the key to solve our own problems. This crisis has eventually shown that we must regain our feeling of responsibility for ourselves before we turn to repairing the world around us. In the two months when we concentrated on what we should do in our own backyard, we managed to achieve results.

Those results were possible even though we have not resolved the root causes of migration, like hunger and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, war in Syria and destabilisation in all regions, from Libya to Afghanistan. Not only have we not solved all those crises, but new ones have appeared, such as tensions between Turkey and Russia, fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh and dozens of terrorist attacks across many regions. It is not humanly possible to resolve all of them with a short-term perspective.

Obviously, no one has the right to ignore the root causes of migration, as it is a challenge not only for Europe but also for the whole global community. Therefore we will work hard on our plan to address the migration crisis, which we are going to present at the G7 Summit in Japan and the G20 Summit in China. Our aim should be to increase the socioeconomic development of the affected regions, notably in terms of education, health care, labour conditions, infrastructure and trade.

Let us not forget, however, that dealing with the root causes will be a constant and long-term effort. What is even worse, we must work with no guarantee of complete success, because it does not depend on our actions alone. That is why we must be effective first and foremost where almost everything depends on us, namely managing the crisis on European soil.

Acting in this spirit, we must remember that the Balkan route is not the only one, and that other countries will also expect our cooperation and solidarity, not only Greece and Bulgaria. I have in mind here the Central Mediterranean route. The numbers of would-be migrants in Libya are alarming. This means that we must be prepared to help and show solidarity to Malta and Italy, should they request it. It will not be possible to simply copy the solutions we have applied in the Balkans, not least because Libya is not Turkey. As regards the Balkan route, we undertook action much too late, which resulted among other things in the temporary closure of the borders inside the eurozone. This is why our full cooperation with Italy and Malta today is a condition for avoiding this scenario in the future.

For far too long Europe was divided into advocates of security and advocates of openness. Today we are finally building a synthesis of those two great needs: the need for security at our borders and the need for openness and tolerance. This is perhaps the biggest success of recent months. This synthesis will be one of the main battlefields of the future Europe, and it demands further actions.

Let us not be afraid of this tension. In the critical moments of its history, Europe was victorious only when it coped with those two challenges simultaneously. To be true Europeans we need to remain open and tolerant yet at the same time tough and effective. Tensions are something natural, and the European phenomenon was the ability to transform them into positive energy. This phenomenon needs to be preserved.

Solidarity is our guiding light as we prepare to reform our common European asylum system. We know the weak points in our current system, and smugglers know them too. They have exploited the patchwork of national rules to make a fortune from human suffering.

Last week the Commission published the options for reform. We need to do three things above all. First, we need to make clear which Member State is responsible for treating an asylum request. This is the foundation of our common asylum system. It must be clear, it must be feasible and it must be sustainable, even in times of crisis. Second, we need to ensure that every man, woman and child receives humane and equal treatment, wherever they are. This requires that we fully harmonise our asylum procedures. Third, we need to ensure that every asylum seeker remains in the country where he or she has been assigned. This is the only way to maintain order. It is the only way to ensure that refugees can enjoy their rights while respecting their obligations.

One principle above all will shape our reform: solidarity once again. We cannot abandon any Member State to face a crisis alone. A country’s place on the map should not decide its share of the work.

I want our asylum system to be the best in the world, and I want this House to help us to build it. You have an opportunity to provide guidance before we publish our proposal next month. I urge you today: share your ideas with us.

Free trade should be fair trade. We are now investigating steel products from China to determine whether they were dumped on the market, and we will take other measures if necessary. The European Council agreed the measures the Commission has taken in relation to agriculture. This is an important dimension of our common undertaking.

Last week the Commission published a VAT action plan giving our Member States more flexibility to set VAT rates in line with their priorities. In a time of upheaval the Commission continues to defend European interests, driving forward solutions and building bridges. This is our job – to provide stability – and this is how we plan to continue.

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), blue-card question.– I am going to ask my question in English, Manfred. I heard you speaking about the fact that Mr Erdoğan must respect human rights and all the rest of it, but I really wonder what kind of leverage you and your Chancellor have on this guy when you are forced to accept anything from him just for him to keep the refugees, to the point that when a humourist in Germany mocks Erdoğan, even the Chancellor is ill at ease and wants to please Erdoğan and does not know exactly how to handle it. This is not a sign of strength. If I were Erdoğan I would laugh at what you say: ‘Let him speak, let Manfred Weber speak, anyway I can get from the Chancellor whatever I like.’

Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group.– Mr President, last September Frans Timmermans stood before the plenary to talk about the immigration and refugee crisis and dramatically announced that winter was coming. Well, as the days get longer and the blossom and leaves appear on the trees, we can now see that summer is coming. The International Organisation for Migration has estimated that eight times more people crossed the seas to come to EU countries in the first three months of 2016 compared to the first three months of 2015. All indications are that the numbers arriving this summer will surpass previous years, many fleeing the horrors of terrorism and barbarism that still exist, but others understandably pursuing a better life in our countries.

None of us wants to see another summer like the last, wondering if the public support for the Schengen area or the public’s confidence in our institutions or the public sympathy can last another summer like the last. And whilst the challenge may not change, what does need to change is our attitude and our response.

This summer is a chance to show that we have learned the lessons of failure from 2015. And while Mr. Tusk admits that not all agreements are perfect, I have to say that much has come out of the Council and the Commission to tackle the crisis which my political group has called for and supports: measures to better guard the external border; enhancing the Schengen Information System; building a more efficient returns and readmission programme, and taking on the human traffickers. However, other decisions have been made which may make some of us feel better but may store up more problems for the future. And while I have huge admiration for the way that the Turkish nation has received, administered and housed over 2.7 million refugees, as Mr Tusk admitted, many of us still have serious concerns about the EU-Turkey deal on a practical level, on a legal level and (some) on an ethical level. Time will tell if those concerns are allayed.

But even as the German Chancellor and the European Commission hailed the deal with Turkey, questions are being asked in other countries. We live in an age of instant messaging and social media, and we have to realise that as one entry point becomes less accessible, messages will be sent back telling others to try alternative routes via Italy, Spain or Malta, to name a just few.

Moving on to last week’s communication from the Commission on the review of the Dublin system, we saw a mixed bag: two very different options for reform. One option that reinvents the wheel and centralises asylum applications and distribution. The other, which seeks to make the wheel that we have turn better, offers some improvements to help states on the front line. Or to put it another way, now we face a clear decision between choosing an option shrouded in idealism but which has little chance of success, and one based on realism and making the situation better.

I suspect the general public would prefer that we choose pragmatism over idealism. So, rather than an idealistic grand plan or what Mr Tusk calls a ‘golden key’, let us make the rules that we have work properly. Let us enhance and improve the laws and agencies already in place, not scrap and replace them through desperation. Let us put our efforts and our money into controlling our borders; returning those who are not fleeing persecution or war or disaster – of course understandably coming for a better economic life – but allowing them to apply through existing legal migration channels; providing dignified detention conditions; speeding up asylum procedures and getting meaningful and voluntary commitment from Member States about helping refugees closer to their homes, or directly resettling the most vulnerable from conflict regions.

But let us show anyone looking to come to EU countries that we have asylum systems which are firm but fair, based on compassion and pragmatism. So my message to this House, to the Commission and to Member States over the next few weeks is a simple one: summer is coming. We do not have time to reinvent the wheel, but we do have time to fix it.

Syed Kamall (ECR), blue-card answer.– I see that the President of the Commission looks across to me – not for an answer, but with a knowing smile. Look, we can all try to be the President of the Commission, but actually the issue here is pragmatism. It is all very well you coming up and saying to me that we need some grand plan and we must impose solutions on Member States, but you have seen the reactions in Member States.

Mr Sulík from my Group asked a very pertinent question when he asked: what do politicians do when the vast majority of the voters in their Member States do not want a solution imposed by the EU? What did Mr Pittella say? Mr Pittella said that they have to accept the decisions of the EU.

I am afraid that is not the way forward. The way forward is to sit down with all the Member States and ask what they can all meaningfully do. They all want to offer solutions instead of having a solution imposed on them.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group.– Mr President, there is a saying that when you play with fire, you have to expect to get burnt. I have to tell you that my impression is that this is exactly what is happening now with the Turkey deal.

Why with the Turkey deal? Because we tried to outsource our problems to an autocratic leader, Mr Erdoǧan. What is he doing? Well, two days ago, Mr Erdoǧan instructed the German Government to prosecute a TV presenter, Jan Böhmermann, for a satirical poem. I can tell you that I am not Mr Böhmermann’s lawyer and what he produced is also not my taste in humour, but in a free society such satirical poems must be possible. That is the price we pay for our freedom, and we pay happily for our freedom.

So, to come back to Erdoǧan: we have already given him the keys to the gates of Europe and now we risk handing over the keys to our newsrooms to him so that he decides and controls our media. I have to tell you that I am not surprised that this is happening. If you put yourself at the mercy of somebody like Mr Erdoǧan and if you outsource your responsibilities to a third country like Turkey, that in my opinion it is only the beginning of what I call Turkish bazaar politics. Why do I say that? Well, Mr Erdoǧan has already declared in the Turkish Parliament that he will call off the agreement he has made with you if, within two months, he does not have the visa liberalisation he requested, regardless of whether he keeps his part of the agreement and complies with our conditions for visa liberalisation.

So it is clear that we have put ourselves in the hands of Erdoǧan and, in fact, of his government. I have more and more the impression and the feeling, Mr Tusk, that, while Putin uses energy as a weapon, Erdoǧan uses poor refugees as a political weapon. That is what is happening.

And I do not say that in a light way, I have to tell you. First proof of that: in Turkey – that was part of the deal, Mr Juncker, and it is not being complied with by the Turks – they need to change their legislation to lift all the territorial restrictions on the Geneva Convention and to make it possible for a Syrian refugee to have asylum in Turkey. They are not doing it and they refuse to do it. Moreover, and more important, is the fact that there are reports – and nobody is talking about this, we have a debate here – from Amnesty International stating that Turkey is sending Syrian refugees back to Syria against international law. Yesterday this was confirmed by Dutch state television in a programme in which they investigated this and proved that the Turkish authorities are doing that.

My question to you, Mr Tusk, is: why are you not examining this? Is this true? And if this is true, can we continue with a deal that is against international law and against our obligations? What are you doing? What is your answer to that? Are you investigating this? Is it true what Amnesty International and Dutch state television said yesterday?

Thirdly, let us not fool ourselves. It is true: you say the deal is working. On the Greek—Turkish border, yes. There are no longer 1 700 a day but 50 a day now. But yesterday the Italian coastguard rescued not 50 people, as normal, but 2 154 people. So what is the result of yesterday? We can only take yesterday’s figures. People like to talk about figures here and about the deal. Well, they are the figures – from 1 700 to 50, and from 50 to 2 154. Is that a deal that is working?

In the meantime, we have in fact put our position, our freedom and our values in the hands of whom? Of Erdoǧan. Well, I am saying that instead of having a debate here about a deal that in my opinion is not working, we ourselves have to get our act together in Europe. That is the priority now and, in my opinion, that means three things.

First of all, the European Border and Coast Guard. Do you know what the reality is? The Commission, rightly, has asked the Member States for a number of people. Do you know the figures? Four hundred people were asked for as interpreters: 37 were sent to Greece. The Commission asked for 472 migration officers: 31, Mr Tusk, have been sent to Turkey and to Greece. The Commission asked for 1 500 security officers. How many have been sent? Three hundred and thirty-nine.

So in total, more than 2 300 people have been requested by the Commission as the start of this European Border and Coast Guard, and 400 of these people, more or less, have, in reality, been put at the disposal of the Commission. Is that a deal that is working? I have another idea. I think we desperately need this European Border and Coast Guard and to make an agreement so that it can be rolled out.

Secondly, I think we desperately need a European asylum system and, like Mr Pittella, I give the support of my Group to go forward with the Commission’s proposal as fast as possible.

And desperately, if you want to fight the smugglers, there is only one way and that is to make legal migration to Europe possible too. That is the only way to stop the smugglers – smugglers in Turkey or smugglers in North Africa.

(Applause)

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

James Carver (EFDD), blue-card question.– Mr Verhofstadt, you and I will always disagree politically, but I have to agree with your honesty here. You are saying what former President of the Commission, Roy Jenkins – a British politician– was saying, which is that there are now only two clear and consistent positions as regards Britain’s membership of the European Union: all in or all out. I admire your honesty for standing up and saying as much. Would you agree with me that the signals – be they smoke signals or, indeed, hand signals – coming out of this place indicate the understanding that the British people’s patience with the EU institutions has finally run out?

Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), blue-card answer.– I like your British sense of humour, but I see it more as a question for Mr Kamall, who is a specialist in this.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group.– Mr President, I am very surprised. We are here in what I have been told repeatedly is the home of European democracy, so surely we could have taken the opportunity this morning to celebrate the Dutch referendum last week, in which the people said ‘no’ to EU enlargement, ‘no’ to the deal with the Ukraine, and no doubt had it been Turkey, an even bigger number of people would have said ‘no’ to Turkish accession. It was a victory for democracy but, in particular, it was a victory for a little organisation called GeenStijl, a group of young bloggers who managed to get together 427 000 signatures. So it was also a victory for direct democracy, in the week when we remember that Gianroberto Casaleggio, the genius behind the Five Star Movement in Italy, has died. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the new politics.

We were told by Mr Juncker that if the Dutch voted ‘no’ it would be a disaster, but he has not mentioned it today at all. Indeed, his predecessor, Mr Van Rompuy, my old mate, says we should just ignore the Dutch and carry on blithely. So, what we are seeing is the big battalions of vested self-interest doing their best to completely ignore the will of the Dutch people.

I think things are changing. I do not believe these institutions can survive 21st-century technology. I think the will of the people is changing politics in a way that makes all of you in this room deeply fearful, and so you should be. As we, in the United Kingdom, enter the final countdown of our referendum, all eyes are on this Turkish deal. What we see is the bosses of the EU bowing and scraping before Mr Erdoğan, who gleefully walks all over them and tramples over human rights at every level.

Mr Juncker tells us this morning that we are making progress. Let us just examine that. 1.8 million people have come to the EU in the last 18 months and we have sent back 300. It does not sound like it is going very well to me.

The one group that will be pleased, though, are ISIS. They have now managed to put 5 000 of their operatives into the European continent, according to the boss of Europol: something that should send a shiver down our collective spines. I have to say that, in the end, I think it is what the British referendum will turn on. I think we will vote for Brexit, and the reason is we will vote to put our own safety first. It is going to be as it was in the Netherlands last week – a battle of people versus the politicians. You may have the big money, the big businesses and Goldman Sachs, but we have got our armies of bloggers. In the end the people’s will is going to prevail. This place will not survive.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

Peter Eriksson (Verts/ALE), blue-card question.– I have a question for Mr Farage, sitting behind the British flag. Do you not think it is embarrassing for many Brits that a speaker, speaking behind the British flag, is celebrating a referendum of which the only winner is Mr Putin, who now is celebrating the fact that Europe is not united behind the cooperation with Ukraine?

Nigel Farage (EFDD), blue-card answer.– I am no fan of Mr Putin, but I am equally not very keen on going to war with Mr Putin. It strikes me as being a very silly idea. What did we do? We encouraged the overthrow of a corrupt but democratically-elected leader in Ukraine. We, in effect, have poked the Russian bear with a stick and we are surprised when he reacts. We should not be.

I think we should all have our own individual nation-state democracies, and I want a Europe, Mr Eriksson, where we trade together, cooperate together, work together, are friends and good neighbours with each other. What I do not want is that flag, an anthem, and all these presidents. I do not want political union. I want genuine European friendship.

Bill Etheridge (EFDD), blue-card question.– Would you like to either clarify, or maybe join with your leader, Mr Pittella, in the comments that he made earlier? I would be interested in your opinion. Do you agree with him that it is selfish of nation states to decide how many refugees they take? Do you agree with him that Member States should be forced to take certain numbers? Do you join with me in condemning the lack of respect that a leader of a Group which includes the British Labour Party shows to independent nation states as a disgrace? Would you agree?

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR), blue-card answer.– Madam, I do not know how my intervention was interpreted into various languages, yet I think that the future will show there is a clear link between all of these issues. I was also referring to the administrative ability to solve these problems after the terrorist attacks.

the Verts/ALE Group, which is very concerned about the deal with Turkey. First, the deal does nothing to solve the refugee crisis. Instead of providing a just and humane common European solution, Member States are egotistically trying to hide the crisis from the view of EU citizens, pretending that the illegal mass returns of refugees to Syria have nothing to do with the Union. But we know how terrible the human suffering at the Turkish-Syrian border is. The Union should have proposed an ambitious and united approach in asylum matters based on solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities.

Second, Turkey is not a safe country for refugees. It does not provide basic guarantees of the status of refugees. Moreover, Turkey is not a safe country even for its own nationals. Turkey is engulfed by violence and repression against Kurds and other minorities. The Turkish Government should put an end to censorship and respect freedom of expression.

Last but not least, the deal is illegal. By framing it as a statement of the Heads of State and Government, the EU side is trying to avoid the obligations under EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It also circumvents the prerogatives of this Parliament to co-decide on asylum and migration matters. We expect Parliament to take all necessary steps to evaluate the legality of this agreement, together with the decisions based on it, and contest it in the Court of Justice.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), blue-card question.– As was mentioned this morning in this Chamber, the agreement with Turkey is not perfect, but it seems it is a step forward anyway. What do you think the European Union should do if this agreement is denounced? Mr Erdoğan declared last week that, if the EU does not fulfil its obligations, Turkey could denounce it any time.

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer.– Well that is the problem, colleague: everything is in the hands of Turkey. That is the problem, because most probably we cannot denounce the agreement but Turkey can. This shows that it is an illegal, strange and impossible agreement.

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE).– Madam President, of course we should negotiate and cooperate with the neighbouring countries, but that is not the same as outsourcing problems. Negotiations take place between two equal powers, but the EU is weak as we are unwilling to solve our own problems, and the Turks realise that. We should have learned from earlier experiences, like in 2010, when we were negotiating a deal with Mr Gaddafi for keeping the refugees there. That was also not a resounding success.

I heard Mr Weber speak earlier, saying that there is finally, as he said, ‘Recht und Ordnung’. Well that is not the way I perceive it, because we hear stories about people being pushed back to Syria – refugees – and we have zero answers from the Council or the Member States. It is a disgrace that this continent – the richest, most prosperous and freest continent in the world – is tolerating this, and that we are not able to give our own response to the situation.

Finally, we talk a lot these days about our own values, about how immigrants need to embrace our values. Let us uphold our own values and make sure that refugees live in acceptable conditions and not in this misery anymore.

Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer.– I have a one-point plan, which is large-scale resettlement from third countries, giving people legal access to the European Union. But as you heard, my critique was not about what Erdoğan does or what Turkey does, but what we are not doing, what we are leaving behind: that is, taking care of vulnerable people in detention centres.

Maria João Rodrigues (S&D).– Madam President, we should recognise that the deal with Turkey is at best a provisional, fragile and controversial solution. What we really need are European instruments to regain control of the situation, of our territory and of our standards, and this means very clear priorities, which are also on the table due to recent Commission proposals.

The first one is to ensure that we really provide European asylum according to European standards. The second is that we adapt our cities to avoid ghettos, for reasons of social cohesion but also to prevent security risks. Finally, we need to build up a real European border system. This is not a line, this is not a wall, this is a border network which should enable our system of relocation and resettlement to work properly, managed by European authorities.

What is at stake is no less than European sovereignty. We should not be afraid of using these words. This is a powerful concept, and most citizens do understand that we need to move to this new phase of building the means to have sovereignty over our resources, our territory and our standards. I believe this should be envisaged also as a big investment, so let us prepare for this new stage.

Jussi Halla-aho (ECR).– Madam President, it says in the Council conclusions that (I quote): ‘several elements of our common European response to the migrant crisis are in place today and are yielding results’. This is a very optimistic statement, as our common measures, such as the relocation scheme, do not work at all.

It is rather the unilateral decisions taken by individual Member States that have reduced the flow of migrants, or at least directed it elsewhere. I refer in particular to the re-establishment of internal border controls and the reduction of unhealthy pull factors at national level. I especially welcome the idea of declaring asylum applications from persons arriving from Turkey inadmissible. And I wonder very much why this is not already the case at the internal borders inside the European Union.

Pavel Telička (ALDE).– Madam President, I must say that I share President Tusk’s comments on the deal with Turkey, including the critical remarks. I would like to ask him how we are monitoring the implementation on the Turkish side. How are we assessing implementation and how do we analyse and draw conclusions? I would appreciate comments on that.

President Juncker, I would like to make two remarks. Firstly, on the migration issue, you have – quite rightly – asked for guidance from the political groups. I would say that the Commission’s proposals contain a number of useful and effective elements. I would probably base myself on the ones that can be speedily and effectively implemented and around which we can unite the European Union.

I will make one final remark on China. Yes to fair trade and fair competition, but this is not what China represents, neither in steel, packaging nor in other industries. I think that we really need to fine-tune some of our trade instruments much more speedily than we are doing.

President. – Before I give the floor to our next speaker Mr Lundgren for one minute, can I say that because of time constraints I will no longer be able to accept blue cards. I hope you understand the reasons for that, and indeed we may have problems with ‘catch the eye’ because I am required to finish this session on time.

Janice Atkinson (ENF).– Madam President, last week Frontex guards dressed up like paramilitary forces and deported 200 migrants from Greece: clearly a staged show of force to pretend the EU-Turkey blackmail deal is a success. The same day as 200 migrants were deported, another 300 entered Greece. Do you really believe the people are being fooled so easily?

The truth is that since the blackmail deal, another 5 000 migrants have been smuggled into Greece. We had a million migrants enter the EU last year alone. How are you going to hold back the next tsunami of migrants? We have to take back control of our own borders. It is truly worrying to see the UK border forces committing to this farce. Our own border force is understaffed and underfunded. Other countries have hundreds of patrol boats; the UK’s coastguard has a mere five, two of which were sent to the Mediterranean. This is a symbolic gesture but has left the UK’s borders open and vulnerable. The money – the British taxpayers’ money – given over to Turkey for this blackmail deal could have bought 80 Border Force cutters to keep my country safe. We cannot let this happen. We have handed our keys over to the EU, so therefore we must Brexit.

President. – Can I just inform the House at this point that I did indicate there would be problems with ‘catch the eye’, and unfortunately we are not able to take any of the requests because many people want to speak in this debate. I would, however, invite you to submit your written speeches and I do apologise in advance because of time problems.

Vicky Ford (ECR).– Madam President, on steel: this is a key strategic sector, jobs are on the line and urgent actions are needed. We must also be sensitive to the impact on other sectors. Anti-dumping measures are vital, and we stand ready in the ECR and in the UK to make them effective.

On migration there is no easy solution. The Turkey deal is not perfect, but it may help. Those in the Schengen zone especially need long-term plans to break the link abused by people-traffickers and to have proper border management systems. But the EU cannot afford to throw endless money or dangle promises of visa-free travel to third countries as some sort of reward for cooperation.

The UK is not in the Schengen zone, and people should stop scaremongering the people of Britain about the impact of the negotiations with Turkey. Migrants are not criminals, but chaos on borders can be exploited by terrorists. We live in an international world and we are stronger when we work together against crime.

Claude Moraes (S&D).– Mr President, I share many of the human rights concerns expressed in the House, but let us be very honest in this House today: this deal is predicated on solidarity. My first question to the Council President is very simple. We in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), which I chair, interviewed the Commission President’s trouble-shooter, Maarten Verwey, and he reported to us very honestly. He said there were 30 asylum processors in the camps.

This is a very backbreaking task that the Commission has, and I respect the men and women of the Commission for the task that they have to do. But I say to the Council President, in respect of the speech that he gave earlier, with all the human rights concerns and all the other organisational concerns: is he going to assure us today that the Member States ultimately will supply the resources that we need to make this work and that all of these safeguards will be in place? The devil is in the detail to make this work, and respect for human rights needs to be ensured.

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE).– Madam President, firstly let me say that, in spite of all the concerns, I appreciate the progress being made in dealing with the migration crisis in Greece. Let me thank all those involved from the Council and the Commission. The speed of the results shows how much time was lost last year, as President Tusk mentioned.

Now we should look to the future, make sure that the promising results in Greece continue and focus on other problem areas in the migration crisis. I have in mind Italy, in particular, and other parts of the Mediterranean. We must find a similar solution that will function well. It will be more difficult than in Greece, but the Greek case shows that it is possible.

Let me now say a few words on the economy. Just a few days ago I mentioned that it seemed to me that political problems are now larger than economic ones. This is true, and it is not necessarily good news. But let me say that in economic policy we must keep going in the same direction. The government must follow the principles agreed and must implement reform and improve the fiscal situation. On the EU, we have an extensive agenda, including reforms in the tax area and dealing with the future relationship with China. Resolving this issue is very important for our future, and I hope we will take it very seriously.

Seán Kelly (PPE).– Madam President, I must say that I have some sympathy and indeed admiration for Presidents Tusk and Juncker in their efforts to deal with this unprecedented crisis, and I think they are showing both leadership and courage in trying to find solutions when all around them are criticising them. While it might be unpalatable from the humanitarian point of view to see migrants returned, it is necessary if we are to control external borders and bring order to a sea of chaos. We have to do the same everywhere. If everybody could walk into this Parliament and speak when they felt like it, then we would have chaos. It is the same with the migratory flows.

President Juncker also made a very important point regarding the EUR 6 billion for Turkey. He said it is not going to Turkey, it is going to the refugees for their food, shelter, education, and this point has been completely lost in the media. Finally, as an add-on, he was able to say that with 22 million people unemployed in Europe, we need to start working to help them as well.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE).– Madam President, two conclusions about those who would like to split the European Union and fragment Europe. The migration challenge is a long-term challenge, and we can have different views on how to deal with it. We can be critical of different solutions, maybe because no solution will be perfect anyway. But what is very clear is that if we do not do it together, we will not be able to do it at all. And that would be a moral shame against all those people who are fleeing from brutality and atrocities. That shame would be a boon to those who want us to split and fragment and not to be able to live up to our responsibility.

Second, Ukraine: if we turn our back on Ukraine, we are creating an opening for the forces of darkness undermining European stability. This is a message to the Council and the Commission: remain behind Ukraine, give them support and ensure that we can stand up as a united Europe.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D).– Madam President, I am in favour of a constructive relationship with Turkey, but the current one clearly resembles bullying and extortion on the part of Turkish President Erdoğan, with the threat of overloading Europe with refugees in the event of non-compliance. The same applies to threats of sabotaging the whole migration deal should Turkey not get visa-free travel.

I wholeheartedly acknowledge the fact that Turkey currently houses and provides for more than 2.5 million refugees and may require assistance. However, the current actions of the Turkish leadership, in relations with the EU and a majority of its members, cannot go unnoticed. In particular, there are serious indications that Turkey played a major role in enabling Jihadist groups, such as Daesh and the Al-Nusra Front in Syria. This support has contributed to the current refugee crisis. That being said, I urge European leaders to promote the interests of European states and Europeans by keeping true to our values.

Dimitris Avramopoulos,Member of the Commission.– Madam President, first of all I would like to express my thanks for your meaningful contributions, many of which are very much in line with the Commission’s thinking and objectives. Let me clarify some points.

Our relationship with Turkey is not about antagonism in terms of power dynamics. It is about an agreement to address an issue in a joint way. Both Europe and Turkey are under great pressure. We are confronted with the same challenges and an unprecedented situation. Cooperation is necessary. It is true that Turkey considers this cooperation to be a catalyst to reenergise our relations as well as its European perspective.

This new chapter in EU-Turkey relations is not interpreted as a concession on our basic principles and values of European democracy. On the contrary, it is an opportunity for Turkey to come closer to European standards on all issues: democratic values, rule of law, freedom of expression, respect for minority rights, and resolution of the Cyprus issue. It is in Europe’s interest to have a democratic and stable Turkey as a neighbour, and it is in the interest of Turkey to have the European Union as a stable supporter and partner.

The refugee crisis brought us closer in a spirit of mutual understanding. It needs to be proved whether we mean what we say and what we agree. We are monitoring to ensure that every single aspect of this agreement happens in full accordance with European Union and international law. I do not have any doubt about it, and we persist on that. For example, the Turkish authorities have passed legislation to ensure protection for Syrians. We told them very explicitly that guarantees are needed for all those who are in need of protection, whether they are Syrians or non-Syrians.

On visa liberalisation, 35 out of the 72 requirements are fulfilled, but the Commission has been crystal clear: we can only make a proposal to lift visa requirements if all benchmarks are met. Turkey knows this, and it is making efforts to further accelerate the fulfilment of the benchmarks so that we can lift the visa requirements by June 2016.

The deal has only started being implemented, with just over 300 people who had not applied for asylum being returned and 74 Syrians resettled directly from Turkey so far. This is only the start. Next week the Commission will formally report on the state of play of implementation of all elements of this agreement.

Let me say this: this agreement is an important step for a long-term renewed relationship. A common goal is also to come closer to one another when it comes to values, as I stressed at the beginning of my remarks. In the meantime, the Commission is heavily involved in the situation on the ground in Greece. We are doing everything to support Greece in expanding reception capacities and in making sure that vulnerable applicants, such as women and children, are being treated appropriately. Our people are there, deployed all around the Greek islands, as well as on the Greek mainland, providing our help to the Greek Government and the Greek authorities.

Member States need to continue relocating massively from Greece, and I fully agree with what was said in this House today, that all Member States must take their share of their responsibilities. Of the more than 50 000 people stuck in Greece, at least 70% are eligible for relocation. This is important for those who were stranded in Idomeni and Pireus before 20 March.

Let us also look at other routes. The arrivals from Libya to Italy show that as long as there is instability, as long as there are smugglers taking advantage of this situation, people will continue to migrate. It is as simple as that. So we have to keep working on the bigger picture. This means continuing our political efforts to bring back stability to Syria and Libya. This also means turning into reality our proposal for a European Border and Coast Guard.

We are very happy that this House has presented a draft report and has a timetable which reflects our commitments. We have no time to lose here – indeed, summer is already here. This also means enhancing legal pathways so that people do not have to resort to irregular arrangements. I would like to thank those Members of this House who have raised this and who support our view.

Stepping up our efforts on resettlement is an essential part of the solution, primarily from Turkey now but also from Lebanon and Jordan, which are hosting hundreds and thousands of refugees. I have said this before: if we genuinely want to close the irregular backdoor, we have to open a safe and legal window. Fortress Europe is neither desirable nor feasible, simply because as long as people have reasons to flee, they will continue to do so, and they will continue to try to come to Europe. And not only is it our moral and legal responsibility to offer a safe haven for those in need, we also need to make our policies and our approach future-proof.

Resettlement is the way forward to ensure orderly, legal and controlled admission from third countries for those who are in need of protection. Some of you also mentioned Dublin. We do not want a cosmetic reform. The President was very clear today on that. We need to reform and improve Dublin to ensure that solidarity and a fair sharing of responsibility is engrained in the new system, because the current one is simply not sustainable.

We all know that there is no easy solution to the challenge we face, but one thing is sure: we have to work together and not against each other. This is valid for the European Union institutions, the Member States and also our relations with our neighbours.

Donald Tusk,President of the European Council.– Madam President, there are several aspects of our debate to which I would like to refer.

Firstly, regarding relocation: this is – and will be – one of the key elements of the European solution to the crisis. In this aspect, of course, we need solidarity. I have no doubt about that. But we would be making a mistake if it became the main tool of our policy, because it would be a simple incentive for further, even greater, migration flows, something like an encouragement for possible new migrants. This is why I think we have to be very cautious, especially when it comes to communication with the outside world.

In the debate, Mr Kamall and Mr Verhofstadt referred to statistics on irregular migration in the context of the Mediterranean route. I am always very cautious when it comes to statistics. I have some reason to be cautious, but today it is indeed worth considering them. First, concerning the Balkan route, it is true that 150 000 irregular migrants have arrived in Europe since the beginning of this year, but the numbers are falling, month after month, from close to 70 000 in January, to 50 000 in February, to 30 000 in March, and to about 1 000 in April. Just imagine if only in the month of January, in the middle of winter, there were 70 000 migrants, how many of them would have come in April if we had not taken action?

Second, it is also true that since the start of this year, 20 000 irregular migrants have come to Europe via the central Mediterranean route and that the numbers are growing. But no Syrians are among them. They are nationals of Africa and countries such as Nigeria, Somalia, Gambia, the Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast. What does this mean in fact? If we had not closed the Western Balkans route, we would now have three or five times more migrants – those from Africa coming to us through Libya, as well as those who have now been stopped at the border or discouraged from crossing the border.

Many have said today that our priority should be to set up the European Coast Guard. I am in favour, even if this Coast Guard will not be operational this year. That is obviously impossible. But we must ask ourselves the question: what exactly should the EU Coast Guard do? Let all through who want to enter Europe, or stop and control them? I think it is obvious – not only for me – that they should stop and control them, which means in fact the same very controversial action that we are applying right now. In the first place we must expect national coastguards to enforce our law on European borders. The European coastguards should support those who need help but cannot replace them.

President. – The debate is closed.

I wish to inform the House that before we move to the formal sitting with the President of the Portuguese Republic, we will now have the three institutions sign the Better Law Agreement.

Ana Gomes (S&D), in writing.– The EU-Turkey deal to outsource the refugee problem is a disgrace: the EU is violating human rights and international law by detaining asylum seekers and forcibly deporting them, without even the possibility to ask for asylum, via a Kafkaesque Skype system, which is not operational. Also the agreement is not even working: it is not stopping people from coming over from Turkey, Libya or Russia and certainly is not stopping the trafficking mafias: actually it is giving them more opportunities for their sordid business. Idomeni will remain an ugly scar in our faces as Europeans. Opening safe and legal routes and channels for asylum seekers and migrants’ applications, as Canada has done, should have been the alternative – but the Council refused to even consider that. Presidents Tusk and Juncker – you failed to act last summer against your EPP pal Viktor Orbán when he defiantly refused to participate in the relocation distribution scheme agreed by the Council. No wonder now you are failing again to sanction the Visegrad Member States, led by Austria and commanded by Germany, who have bombed Schengen by closing borders with Greece and who are about to raise fences with Italy. By failing to act, you are sinking Europe!

Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing.– It was necessary to conclude quickly an agreement between the EU and Turkey on migrant flows. In prevailing circumstances the agreement is the best arrangement possible. However, the strategic flaws inherent in it should be recognised. The most important problem remains that Turkey-EU relations have become poisoned by a mutual bad faith that is long-term in scope. It goes beyond the ongoing differences that relate to Europe’s critical views about authoritarian developments and human rights issues in Turkey’s governance; the Kurdish question; and the problem of a divided Cyprus. Even if all these issues were resolved, the bad faith would persist. There is still a lack of clarity and honesty regarding Turkey’s future as a member or non-member of the European Union. Is the EU able, with one voice, to declare unequivocally that should Turkey satisfy all the requirements for it to become an EU member, membership would inevitably ensue? The answer is no. But this is not acknowledged. So an indispensable basis, one way or another, by which to define EU-Turkey relations long-term is missing. It is another reason why the EU’s diplomatic leverage with Turkey is so restricted and both sides regard each other with suspicion.

The Europe that I dream of keeps in its memory what Portugal in the strength of its simplicity brought to and from other continents, cultures and civilisations, and that enriches us so much. The Portugal that I have brought with me today crossed seas and faraway lands but never forgot that it belongs to the lands of Homer, Shakespeare, Goethe, Proust, Cervantes, Dante, Joyce, Strindberg, Kundera, Kafka, Szymborska and Pessoa, and many, many others. We are Europeans; we will always be Europeans. Thank you very much.

Syed Kamall (ECR).– Mr President, on behalf of the ECR Group, I rise to propose an adjournment of the vote on the resolution on the situation in Poland under Rules 185 and 192. Commissioner Timmermans travelled to Poland last week for dialogue with the Polish Government. By all accounts, this was very constructive and Mr Timmermans is returning again in a few days’ time for more dialogue. I propose that we postpone this vote until after those meetings have taken place. Surely this House would rather see an amicable solution found to the situation that involves dialogue rather than petty and cheap mudslinging.

If this resolution is genuinely an attempt by this Chamber to assist in the resolution of this matter in an amicable way, then it is in all our interests to move forward in talks between the Polish Government and the Commission. If this is not a politically driven resolution, then I believe this House can agree to this simply modest request.

Martina Anderson, Lynn Boylan and Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL),in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which was concerned with an application to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The report concerned the Volvo Group Truck Operation and 647 workers were being made redundant workers.

The European Globalisation Fund provides financial support to groups of workers who have lost their jobs due to the impacts of globalisation and recession. The European Commission provides a portion of the fund which is then matched by the relevant government.

However the fund has been subject to significant controversies in the past. Money has been used to fund existing supports for redundant workers rather than additional supports. Workers were not adequately involved in the roll out of the programmes.

Worst of all, tens of millions of euros have been returned to the European Commission unspent due to failure of Government to properly run the programmes.

On a number of occasions more than 40% of the EU funding for specific programmes has been returned unspent.

This is absolutely unacceptable and highlights the Irish Government’s lack of action or care on such vital funding issues. This apathetic and incompetent attitude is unacceptable and is something that I will continue to raise on an EU level.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), in writing. ‒ The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case, at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union.

It is absurd that the arbiters of whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation. This project may well be of benefit to the people of Sweden, but I am not best placed to judge.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against – even though this may be a worthwhile project.

Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this report which was concerned with an application to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. The report concerned the Volvo Group Truck Operation and 647 workers were being made redundant workers.

The European Globalisation Fund provides financial support to groups of workers who have lost their jobs due to the impacts of globalisation and recession. The European Commission provides a portion of the fund which is then matched by the relevant government.

However the fund has been subject to significant controversies in the past. Money has been used to fund existing supports for redundant workers rather than additional supports. Workers were not adequately involved in the roll out of the programmes.

Worst of all, tens of millions of euros have been returned to the European Commission unspent due to failure of Government to properly run the programmes.

On a number of occasions more than 40% of the EU funding for specific programmes has been returned unspent.

This is absolutely unacceptable and highlights the Irish Government’s lack of action or care on such vital funding issues. This apathetic and incompetent attitude is unacceptable and id something that I will continue to raise on an EU level.

James Carver (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

David Casa (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this report because the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be mobilised in the case of the Swedish Volvo Trucks where a considerable number of workers have been recently made redundant. The redundancies had been caused by the emergence of strong competition from the Asian truck manufacturers to which the Swedish company had been unable to adjust without a significant decrease in costs. The Fund should be made available in order to help the workers who lost their jobs to help them find new employment.

Deirdre Clune (PPE), in writing. ‒ This is the second application to be examined under the 2016 budget and the 22nd for the manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers sector and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 793 710 from the EGF for Sweden.

The Swedish authorities state that the event giving rise to the redundancies are the developments affecting the European commercial vehicles, and in particular the truck industry in recent years, namely with emerging Asian truck manufacturers, and the difficulties of the truck industry to adjust, forcing it to increase efficiency and decrease cost.

Jane Collins (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

Therese Comodini Cachia (PPE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. In the case of Volvo Trucks the conditions set out in the EGF Regulation are met and therefore Sweden is entitled to a financial contribution

Apart from this instrument it would be suitable to also have Commission strategies that anticipate labour market changes so as to protect jobs and ensure skills training on the basis of comprehensive trade impact assessments.

Daniel Dalton (ECR), in writing. ‒ It is essential that EU expenditure is closely scrutinised on the basis of value for money for taxpayers and I do not believe the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is an efficient tool that offers value for money in terms of reintegrating redundant workers back into the labour market. The United Kingdom Government has never availed itself of funding under the EGF due to its inefficiency and I believe it is time that money spent under the EGF was put to better use. For these reasons I cannot support this report.

Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was set up to provide additional assistance to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. It is a means by which the EU can give valuable help to local economies hard hit by company closures, and so I voted in favour of this application. I regret that the UK Government has not taken advantage of this fund in Wales.

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL),in writing. – I voted in favour in order to support both the funds for the workers and their potential reemployment and the reference to the obligation for companies to comply with their responsibility.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns.

This is the second application to be examined under the 2016 budget and the 22nd for the manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers sector and refers to the mobilisation of a total amount of EUR 1 793 710 from the EGF for Sweden. It concerns 500 workers made redundant.

The application was sent to the Commission on 16 September 2015 and supplemented by additional information up to 11 November 2015. We have concluded, in accordance with all applicable provisions of the EGF Regulation, that the application meets the conditions for a financial contribution from the EGF.

Neena Gill (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the mobilisation of EU funds - which will contribute to helping 500 former Volvo Trucks workers reintegrate into the Labour market by providing them with personalised assistance.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I supported this application for the mobilisation of the EGF for 647 workers made redundant in Volvo Trucks and its suppliers and downstream producers as a result of globalisation in the manufacture of commercial vehicles sector. This is a relatively small segment within the larger automotive industry and is no longer dominated by European manufacturers with increasing competition from Asia. In particular I welcome the fact that 40 000 new employees will be needed in the Västerbotten region and that the measures targeting workers, who regard their educational level as insufficient for the vacancies identified in the region, which require specialised education, will be provided. However it is regrettable that quite a high amount is to be spent on allowances and incentives, at the maximum allowed amount of 35% of the overall package, although they are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities. It is also unfortunate that the Commission was unable to comply with the deadline for the completion of the assessment of this application which is not in the interest of the beneficiaries although it must be noted this was due to an exceptional shortage of staff.

Brian Hayes (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this application as the implications of its success would be beneficial for Irish business.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. ‒ The EU has the necessary instruments to help workers who are suffering from major structural changes in world trade patterns. This EGAF funding shall help 500 former workers to reintegrate into the labour market.

Diane James (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

Afzal Khan (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund, as I support giving assistance to reintegrate workers in the labour market made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and the economic crisis.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Namely in this context, we should work to mobilise the EGF in order to provide a financial contribution of EUR 1 793 710 for 470 workers made redundant in Volvo Trucks and 177 in 4 suppliers and downstream producers. Swedish authorities have provided all necessary assurance that the fund will be used effectively.

Roberta Metsola (PPE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is one of the tools at the Union’s disposal to provide additional assistance to workers negatively impacted upon by major structural changes in world trade patterns. The Commission approved this specific application as it met the conditions for mobilising EGF to support the local economy. I therefore voted in favour of this report to help address the situation of the workers in this automotive sector.

Marlene Mizzi (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour on this report giving the green light for the mobilisation of this European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) related to 647 redundancies in Volvo Trucks and 4 suppliers and downstream producers of Volvo Trucks, operating in the manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers, within the reference period 24 February 2015 - 24 June 2015. The EGAF funding shall contribute to help 500 former workers.

Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. ‒ On the 16th of September 2015 Sweden has submitted an application to the European Commission requesting a contribution of almost EUR 1.8 million from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to help 500 workers of Volvo Trucks made redundant in Västerbotten province in the north of Sweden. Volvo Trucks Umeå plant and four other suppliers were affected by these redundancies.

Arctic labour markets in small populated areas are more fragile due to their geographical isolation and severe weather conditions thus making job creation and employment more costly than other areas. Redundancies like the one in Västerbotten´s province Umeå plant bring a major shock to the regional economy.

I have voted for this report that will help and support the workers made redundant to find jobs by upgrading their skills, preparing them for new opportunities, providing them with guidance, training, job-search support, advice on entrepreneurship and business creation, as well as job-search allowances and travel expenses.

Margot Parker (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

Julia Reid (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving EUR 1 793 710 to Swedish workers who had been made redundant. The unelected and unaccountable EU has no right to spend British taxpayers’ money in this way.

Siôn Simon (S&D), in writing. ‒ This procedure relates to the mobilisation of much-needed funding for the re-integration of 500 workers who were made redundant from Volvo Group Truck Operation EMEA. I have always supported use of the EGF, and it is sickening that the Tory Government refuses to apply for the funding when there has been just cause for its use.

Pavel Telička (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this measure which will enable Volvo’s workers in Sweden, who lost their job due to the rapid changes induced by globalisation, to reintegrate the labour market as quickly and efficiently as possible. Through this fund, the workers will be provided with training, guidance, job-search facilitation, transfer of experiences, support for enterprise creation and collective projects, as well as job-search and training allowances. I believe that this is an important instrument to alleviate the sometimes harsh consequences of globalisation, reduce unemployment periods to their maximum, encourage labour flexibility and thus increase the competitiveness and sustainability of European market.

Martina Anderson, Lynn Boylan and Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL),in writing. – We voted in favour of this report which was technical by nature but contained some very positive provisions, specifically in relation to releasing up much needed funds for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), in writing. ‒ The principle of subsidiarity dictates that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the citizen – in this case, at regional or national level. Therefore, these projects should not be funded by the European Union.

It is absurd that the arbiters of whether this funding should, or should not, be given are Members of the European Parliament with no detailed knowledge of the situation.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be scrapped, which would give money back to the Member States to decide for themselves about the appropriateness of such funding. Consequently, I had no option but to vote against – even though this may be a worthwhile project.

Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this report which was technical by nature but contained some very positive provisions, specifically in relation to releasing up much needed funds for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

James Carver (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

David Casa (PPE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this report and thereby gave my consent for the mobilisation of the Fund for technical assistance at the initiative of the European Commission. The amount granted to the Commission should improve the general functioning of this facility through improvement of monitoring and data gathering on applications received, creation of a knowledge base and more frequent consultations with the EGF implementing bodies and social partners.

Deirdre Clune (PPE), in writing. ‒ This concerns the mobilisation of EUR 380 000 from the Fund, covering technical assistance for the Commission. The objective of the technical assistance is to finance monitoring, information, to create a knowledge base interface and to advice Member States on using, following up and evaluating the EGF. According to Article 11(1) of the EGF Regulation, 0.5% of the annual maximum amount of the EGF (i.e. EUR 828 060 in 2016) can be made available each year for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission.

According to the Commission’s proposal, in 2016 the requested amount is intended to cover the following activities:

Monitoring and data gathering

Information

Creation of a knowledge base / application interface

Administrative and technical support

Evaluation

Jane Collins (EFDD),in writing. – UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

Therese Comodini Cachia (PPE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund has been created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns. Apart from this instrument it would be suitable to also have Commission strategies that anticipate labour market changes so as to protect jobs and ensure skills training on the basis of comprehensive trade impact assessments.

Daniel Dalton (ECR), in writing. ‒ It is essential that EU expenditure is closely scrutinised on the basis of value for money for taxpayers and I do not believe the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is an efficient tool that offers value for money in terms of reintegrating redundant workers back into the labour market. The United Kingdom Government has never availed itself of funding under the EGF due to its inefficiency and I believe it is time that money spent under the EGF was put to better use. For these reasons I cannot support this report.

Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was set up to provide additional assistance to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns. It is a means by which the EU can give valuable help to local economies hard hit by company closures, and so I voted in favour of this application. I regret that the UK Government has not taken advantage of this fund in Wales.

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL),in writing. – I voted in favour. The demand to extend the help for NEETs within the EGF framework after 2017 represents a small victory for our group. It lays down a common position from the EP which that can be recalled in future revisions. As well as the call for a wider use of the derogation criteria that will allow more EGF funding for cases with less than 500 redundant workers, favouring SMEs and/or subcontractors or suppliers touched by the decision of a big group for example.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D), in writing. ‒ I welcomed the measures proposed by the Commission as technical assistance and recall the importance of networking and the exchange of information on EGF and therefore supports the funding of the Expert Group of people Contact EGF and networking seminars on the implementation of the EGF.

I hope that this exchange of information will contribute to the development of better and more detailed reports on the success rate of the EGF in the Member States, particularly on the scope and rate of re-employment of beneficiaries; I also support all initiatives in favour of increased participation and consultation of local authorities who daily manage the measures supported by the EGF.

Neena Gill (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the mobilisation of EU funds, in this case for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. Particularly welcome are the fact that the activities will help to make the application process for funds simpler - as well as improving general awareness of the European Globalisation Fund.

Theresa Griffin (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of this report, which regards an uncontroversial mobilisation of funds.

Antanas Guoga (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of the report. I consider to be positive that the Commission intends to invest EUR 70 000 of the available budget under the Technical Assistance in particular on improving the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of EGF support on individual participants.

Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. ‒ I supported the application by the Commission for EUR 380 000 of the EGF to be mobilised in 2016 for measures for technical assistance to finance expenditure. This amount is below the maximum of 0.5% of the annual maximum amount of the EGF and contains the same items to be funded as in the previous year. This assistance provided by the Commission to the Member States supports and enhances the use of the EGF by providing information on the applications and by spreading best practice among Member States. Positive measures proposed are the funding of the Expert Group of Contact Persons of the EGF and networking seminars on the implementation of the EGF as the promotion of the Fund is hugely important. I hope this exchange of information will contribute to better and more detailed reporting on the success rate of the applications in the Member States, in particular about reach and re-employment rates of beneficiaries which are crucial in order to assess the added value of measures. In this regard I also welcome the integration of reporting into the electronic data exchange system which could ease the administrative burden for Member States and facilitate the use of reports for evaluation purposes.

Brian Hayes (PPE), in writing. ‒ I support this resolution as the European Globalisation Adjustment fund provides much needed support for workers who have been affected by the major structural changes in the global trade patterns as a result of Globalisation.

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund was formed to support people losing their jobs as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation. For the 2016 the provided EGF contribution for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission of EUR 380 000 is intended to cover different activities as monitoring and data gathering, information, creation of knowledge base, administrative and technical support, as well as audit, evaluation and control activities. I have voted in favour for this report taking into consideration that these financed activities should improve the simplification of the application procedure and its visibility.

Diane James (EFDD),in writing. – Together with my fellow UKIP MEP colleagues I voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

Afzal Khan (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour of mobilisation of the fund, as I support giving assistance to reintegrate workers in the labour market made redundant due to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation and the economic crisis.

Stelios Kouloglou (GUE/NGL), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund aims at providing assistance to enterprises that have gone bankrupt due to globalisation and/or economic crisis. I voted in favour of this report, since we reached to pass one amendment in order to extend the Fund and another amendment to defend the wider use of the Fund. One last positive element of this report is that we will have a better assessment of economic mutations causing the dismissals of EGF beneficiaries.

Roberta Metsola (PPE), in writing. ‒ The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is one of the tools at the Union’s disposal to provide additional assistance to workers negatively impacted upon by major structural changes in world trade patterns. The Commission approved this specific application as it helps to improve the functioning of the fund. I therefore voted in favour of this report to improve the performance of this fund in order to better address the situation of those affected.

Marlene Mizzi (S&D), in writing. ‒ I voted in favour on a report containing a decision to mobilize the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to provide technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission. The amount of the foreseen EGF contribution, EUR 380 000, will be used for financing various activities such as data gathering, creation of a knowledge base, administrative and technical support, information and communication activities as well as audit, control and evaluation activities.

Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. ‒ This report concerns the mobilisation of 380 000 euro from the European Globalisation Fund to cover technical assistance for the Commission. I have voted for this report that is intended to cover monitor and data gathering, information and website maintenance, creation of a knowledge base, administrative and technical support through the establishment of an Expert Group of Contact Persons regarding EGF, consisting of one member from each Member State.

Margot Parker (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

Julia Reid (EFDD), in writing. ‒ UKIP voted against giving the unelected and unaccountable EU Commission an extra EUR 380 000 to help implement the globalisation adjustment fund. British taxpayers should not be forced to fund EU institutions to hand out our money for workers made redundant across Europe.

Siôn Simon (S&D), in writing. ‒ EUR380 000 has been requested for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission to cover, inter alia, monitoring and data gathering as well as information, technical support and evaluation activities. This funding is necessary and I wish to allow access to this much-needed EGF funding.